File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2000/anarchy-list.0008, message 265


Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:14:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Anarcho domains?
From: Larry Bekich <LBekich-AT-MNSi.Net>


on 8/22/00 3:12 PM, mat catastrophe wrote:


>> What bothers me about all these sites is that they are cheapening and
>> degrading the power of ...
>> 
> 
> Well, to some degree, alot of leftist ideology has already been co-opted into
> pop
> culture. Che Guevara is on t-shirts, the Taco Bell "Revolutionary Taco"
> campaign
> flew a rather communist looking flag, etc, etc.
> Now, *anarchist* ideals are, I would think, a little harder to co-opt. For one
> thing, they are usually a little less clean and pretty (I mean, the red and
> black
> flag is not as visually stunning and pleasing as the red/olive green/gold
> communist
> stuff). And the Circle-A has already been sold out as a sign that the kids
> aren't
> alright.
> 
> By your logic, then, if they shouldn't be allowed to grab our symbols, should
> we
> grab theirs?


As you know there isn't anything we can do to stop the appropriation of
symbols and phrases by corporations.


> Do we look silly taking Nike's Swoosh(tm :-) and adding the
> words,
> "Class War: Just Do It" to it? Or the McDeath/Mc Libel logos? Are we
> cheapening the
> ideals if we do that? Are people confused by these displays? I doubt that many
> people take a closer look at those slogans, unless they are large and
> prominent. The
> power of the corporate logo is that it becomes pervasive. It no longer even
> matters
> that the Swoosh says "Class War." What most people see is Nike. Can we fix
> that? Do
> we need new logos that we can make prominent and recognizable?


I agree--I think it is impossible to "distort" the image of Nike or
McDonalds through some attempt to link it with an issue--it just further
promotes those brands/company logos.


And I wonder if Adbusters is coming to that conclusion.  For all its
criticism of activists for the "same old/same old" (Edward Hermann has had a
dust-up or two with the founder of Adbusters) I doubt if Adbusters has had
any really impact on changing the minds of consumers.  Their efforts make
for nice, quasi-art projects, but are they really accomplishing anything?  I
doubt it.


>> Maybe we shouldn't care, but having to always explain yourself and the
>> changing meaning of images and words is a real effort.
>> 
> 
> I think I covered a bit of this above. Back to your original point about
> comercial
> interests using anarchist logos; we can't very well copyright them - so then
> we have
> to tolerate the usage. What we can, and should do, is make sure that we can
> find and
> make public the differences between activist sites and crap. And that alone is
> a
> task that boggles the mind.....


What really boggles my mind is the effort of trying to alter the thinking of
folks I come across in everyday conversation.  Most are conservative,
believe most of what they read and hear, and can't possibly imagine a
different way of life.

I was at a dinner party on Saturday night----and discussion turned to that
of the ill-fated Russian sub, I brought up NATO and expressed my view of
dismantling NATO since it no longer had relevance.  Some folks agreed with
me that it was a boondoggle for arms suppliers but beyond that, conversation
quickly turned to safer territory.

I think our society has been deeply, deeply conditioned to NOT discuss
politics, religion and other things sensitive topics--and maybe this is
where we ought to turn our attention to.  That is, encouraging the
expression of multiple viewpoints.  And being civilized about how we respond
to what we don't agree with.



Larry



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005